MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kwalitatieve en transparante fraudebestrijding

2021· article· nl· W4200182457 on OpenAlexaff
S.S. Buisman

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving · 2021
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDutch Social and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kwalitatieve en transparante fraudebestrijding – Een verkennend onderzoek naar handhavingscriteria voor fraudedelicten Fraude is een complex en wijdverspreid probleem. Terwijl de criminaliteitscijfers de afgelopen jaren zijn gedaald, neemt het aantal fraudegevallen met rasse schreden toe. Het is dan ook niet verwonderlijk dat beleidsmakers hard willen optreden tegen fraudeurs. Echter, zaken zoals de toeslagenaffaire hebben laten zien dat het beleid daarin vaak doorschiet en dat de menselijke maat met enige regelmaat uit het oog verloren wordt. Daarom zou een set van handhavingscriteria dienen te worden ontwikkeld voor transparante en kwalitatieve handhaving van fraudedelicten. In dat kader wordt in dit artikel wordt een eerste verkennend onderzoek gedaan naar de gehanteerde handhavingscriteria bij fraudedelicten.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & HandhavingSame topicDutch Social and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207